17 March 2013

The Great Green Con No. 1: The Hard Proof That Finally Shows Global Warming Forecasts That Are Costing You Billions Were WRONG All Along

By
David Rose

No,
the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now, we reveal
the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds
about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade
with your money? Well... what do YOU think?

The
Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official
predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The
graph above blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain
reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and
subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves
have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.

Steadily climbing orange and
red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world
temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The
estimates – given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest
only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both
bands.

But when the latest official
global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the
predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point
of falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely.

Varying fears: In 1977 we were warned of the 'next ice age', now we are warned that the planet is getting dangerously hot*

The graph shows in incontrovertible
detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated.
Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from
heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon
emissions.

The
eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have
also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no
emissions targets.

A
version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark
Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading
climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global
warming will not be realised.

Academics
are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last
night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science,
said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a
catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.

Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.

The
graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in
the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper
first disclosed last year.

At
the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast
predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now
says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the
graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest
scenario predicted.

Its source is impeccable. The
line showing world temperatures comes from the Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’
database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring posts.
This was added to the 75 and 95 per cent certainty bands to produce the
graph by a group that amalgamates the work of 20 climate model centres
working for the IPCC.

Predictions
of global warming, based on scientists’ forecasts of how fast
increasing CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise, directly led to
Britain’s Climate Change Act. This commits the UK to cut emissions by 80
per cent by 2050.

The current Energy Bill is set to
increase subsidies for wind turbines to £7.6 billion a year – leading to
a combined cost of £110 billion. Motorists will soon see a further 3p
per litre rise in the cost of petrol because this now has to contain
‘biofuel’ ethanol.

Many
scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke
particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed
‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level
of CO2.

Yesterday
Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The
fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15
years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make
the high estimates unlikely.’

And
Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious
Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot.
The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another
decade or two.’

James
Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent ‘warmist’,
recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look
‘increasingly untenable’, with the true figure likely to be about half
of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.

Avowed
climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a
new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global
Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we
have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be
the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’

I said the end wasn't nigh... and it cost me my BBC career says TV's first environmentalist, David Bellamy

Challenged the orthodoxy: Former BBC Botanist
David Bellamy said that he was regarded as heretical for not toeing the
line on global warming

This
graph shows the end of the world isn’t nigh. But for anyone – like
myself – who has been vilified for holding such an unfashionable view,
possibly the most important thing about it is its source: the United
Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since
its creation in 1988, the IPCC has been sounding the alarm about
man-made global warming. Yet here, in a draft of its latest report, is a
diagram overlaying the observed temperature of the earth on its
predictions.

The graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler.

The
awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the
past 50 years. And Met Office records show that for the past 16 years
temperatures have plateaued and, if anything, are going down.

As
the graph shows, the longer this goes on, the more the actual,
real-world temperature record will diverge from the IPCC’s doom-laden
prediction.

Yet
this prediction is used to justify the ugly wind farms spoiling our
countryside and billions in unnecessary ‘green’ taxes that make our
industry less competitive and add up to £100 a year to household energy
bills.

Man-made
global warming has become scientific orthodoxy, with no room for
dissent. Tragically, the traditional caution of my brethren has gone out
of the window along with the concept of sceptical peer reviewing to
test new theories.

Opponents
of man-made global warming are regarded as dangerous heretics, as I
learnt to my cost. Soon after the IPCC was created, I was invited to
what is now the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
Research in Exeter to hear a presentation on global warming.

As
the face of natural history on the BBC and a science academic, they
wanted to enrol me in their cause. But when I read the so-called
evidence, I realised it was flawed and refused to ‘sign up’.

I
rapidly found myself cast out from the BBC and the wider scientific
community. When I helped some children campaign against a wind farm as
part of a Blue Peter programme, I was publicly vilified. Abusive emails
criticised me. I realised my career at the BBC was over.

But
scientific theory should be tested. That’s why I question the science
which casts carbon as the villain that will bring about the end of the
world.

Open discussion: David Bellamy argues that we
should be able to test theories about global warming and that the world
can live with fluctuations of carbon levels in the air

Geology
tells us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of
our atmosphere before being locked away in the earth millions of years
ago. At that time, there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million
(ppm) in the atmosphere. Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is
now about 385ppm.

It is obvious the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon.

There is a correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the cart before the horse.

The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.

Indeed,
there may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian
scientist David Archibald has shown a remarkable correlation between
the sun’s activity and our climate over the past 300 years. Climate
scientists insist we must accept the ‘carbon’ orthodoxy or be cast into
the wilderness.

But
the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great
way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more
work.

The
reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global
temperature is well within life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is
cooler by comparison to much of Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be
the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy.

* 1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL COOLING

In
the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about
a looming ‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming – as
the Time magazine cover pictured here illustrates.

Temperatures
had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned
that the trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse
because of shorter growing seasons.

Newsweek
magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong
‘meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it’. But, it lamented,
‘scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even
prepared to take the simple measures of introducing the variables of
climatic uncertainty into economic projections’. It said the planet was
already ‘a sixth of the way towards the next ice age’.

While
recently every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on
warming, in the Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted
‘the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’, along with
‘droughts, floods, extended dry spells and long freezes’.